FWIW, I think the question should be "can you get racist/ misogynist/ homophobic/ etc. voters motivated to vote against racism/ etc. because of economic issues?"

I don't know, but I think it's the more worthwhile problem to tackle.

i.e. that ideas matter, deeply, & that the highest value is to (try our best to) live with intellectual & moral integrity— no bullshit. And that it also matters to try to hold one another to this ideal, as a group. I really do mean this.

I'd add that, the definitional obfuscation employed here feeds into the failings of mainstream journalism when it comes to water fowl taxonomy.

Mainstream US journalism won't call a duck a duck, making it a rhetorically effective move to call things by any other name than what they are.

Unfortunately, in US journalism it is considered neutral to spread a lie, but it is considered "biased" to call out a lie. So, there is a structural asymmetry that rewards colorful lies with virality.

Moreover, to them, getting to pillage and plunder is both right and perk of said superiority.

Note, for example, how they will instantly resort to whining if the target of their pillage and plunder has the audacity to resist successfully. They don't want to actually have to earn their superiority.

I would say, fwiw, that what they want is to be affirmed in their own sense of superiority.

They only care about "Western Civilisation" when it does so, and to them said superiority is the cause, not the product, of the greatness of "Western Civilisation."

It especially makes a huge difference that Fareed understands that politics happens in other countries than the US too. Center-left failure and populist-right success are international phenomena, seeing how it's happening elsewhere is crucial to separating the root causes from the accidental.

This article makes really good points about the inability of most people to cut expenses without entirely losing the ability to participate in the economy. I get tired of people telling me to live cheaper by eliminating things that are necessary for modern life.

I think we often don't appreciate the danger men face when they break those norms, which serve as a major method to enforce patriarchy. This seems to be more important for patriarchy even than women's norms. It's not that men fear being women, it's that they fear physical attack and death.

This is what we mean when we say “patriarchy hurts men, too”.

I have often seen masculinity, conventional version, as a constant renunciation, in return for corrosive power. All the things you're not allowed to like, enjoy, do, say, wear, but (metaphorically speaking) this straitjacket comes with a gun.

So many men go through life like that. You can play poker because it's right-coded, you can't enjoy fruity alcoholic drinks because they're women-coded, you can't lick an ice cream cone because it's gay-coded. All day, every day, choosing and judging things based on coding for narrow norms.

The point of your article (in my mind) is that religion is complex, even conservative religious dynamics! The pushback is because this messes with people’s set beliefs. I also think it’s a good look into that evangelical conservative base cracking. This is good reporting, and that some people don’t

While I get the convenience factor, I'm annoyed at how wireless-pilled people are nowadays. Wireless is inherently less reliable! Don't just go wireless everywhere, even when you can easily wire things up. Wireless is fickle like the wind, but good wiring will never betray you!